This Martingale Sequence CAN'T BLOW UP (free)

[Hyperius]

  Hi! Are you a little discouraged by the x2, /2 buttons at your favorite casino?

Are you wondering why the forums and chat and general excitement about 'yet another gambling site' have subsided quite a bit?

I think it's probably because one of the only ways to bet (I like to call it trading now) is to ADD to your bet and typically involves a martingale

sequence and very often leaves the 'gambler' with an empty account as he watches loss 25 crystalize LOL!  

NOW, CHECK THIS OUT:

Multiplier=2.00
Increase on loss=100% (x2)

How to trade randomness:

3 trades under 50 - did you lose? don't worry about it!

then 3 trades over 50 - did you lose again? don't worry about it!

then 3 trades under 50 again - did you lose? wow!

then 3 trades over 50 - did you lose again? THE KING HAS BEEN CROWNED.

then 3 trades under 50 - ZOMG, homie, are you all out of duckets??? You pressed the wrong button or something cuz damn!

So that's makes 15 trades in the sequence and if you were to lose all 15 it would look somthing like this:

(under)
(under)
(under)
(over)
(over)
(over)
(under)
(under)
(under)
(over)
(over)
(over)
(under)
(under)
(under)

Maybe I'm totally mistaken but seriously, isn't that just too much of a pattern for randomness???!

Please add to the discussion. And please, don't say things like "no, your man cave smells like beets!" because it makes us all feel bad even if you don't realize how annoying saying stuff like that is.

Anyway if this method is considered viable after people comment, we should try to name this kind of trading strategy like 'pattern trading' or something...

Alright folks, I've done my best for now and this is after watching dice action for years and years so i hope you find this idea helpful.

Let's start skimming - ponzi meming like the awesome community we already are and could continue to be!

All the best! Good luck and good trading,

Hyperius  

BTCBTCBTC

[iluvbitcoins]

Wait, what

You just wrote Martingale can't blow up and you proceed to explain a martingale strategy
The only change is you don't keep betting the same under/over on loss
The house can still win, it's not very likely there will be 15 unders in a row, but it's the same chance as 15 under/under/under/over/over etc. you wrote
It changes nothing

[pthnmj]

All martingale blows up. no exception. lol
Gambling is gambling and you always lose if you keep playing because the house odds in not on favor on you.

[tigershark]

You could get 15 losses in a row if you play a lot. If you played 500 times, there's probably going to be a few long streaks of wins and losses in there. The problem with martingale is that the long streak of losses is losing a lot more than the long streak of wins gives you gains.

[Hyperius]

Wait, what

You just wrote Martingale can't blow up and you proceed to explain a martingale strategy
The only change is you don't keep betting the same under/over on loss
The house can still win, it's not very likely there will be 15 unders in a row, but it's the same chance as 15 under/under/under/over/over etc. you wrote
It changes nothing

Hello and thank you for the reply.

Hmm, I suppose what I would say to that is how could two different strategies (1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1) versus (3/3/3/3/3) have exactly the same odds? I like to invoke physics whenever I can lol! Or God for that matter haha.

Also, I've been watching dice action (autobet and single rolls) long enough to double an account many many times and I've never seen 3/3/3/3/3.

Is your experience different?

And the casino or house can also act like a financial institution and setup their operation like a ponzi strategy. If there are always more deposits coming in and the rate of this inflow is greater than the rate of money flowing out of the business, then all they need to do is manage this process and take a small profit through a commission or differential (spread or house edge).

Does this make sense to you or am I incorrect with my logic?

Thanks! 

Bitcoin is the greatest lol!

[ONM]

Maybe I'm totally mistaken but seriously, isn't that just too much of a pattern for randomness???!

No, you're mistaken.  It's just math.

First off, it doesn't matter if you bet "over" or "under".  Your odds are the same either way.

Then you factor in the house edge, so a 50% bet is going to hit 49.5% of the time, assuming a 1% house edge.

So the odds of your rolling 15 times in a row and losing on a 49.5% is .0035429960796203568578093141220123291015625%.  That's low!  But it's still within the realm of possibility.  

But yes, the odds of you missing 15 straight 50% bets is very very low.  But the trouble comes in when you look at the big picture.  Because people don't bet one cycle and then quit, they bet over and over again because, like you, they think it's "free money".  If you bet for 1000 cycles (a cycle being betting using a martingale system until you win one bet), you only have a 28.7% chance of not hitting 15 loses in a row.  That means that over 70% of the time, you'll hit 15 loses in a row and lose 32,768 units.  

[Bitcoinsummoner]

This method will be the same result if you follow this method it can blow down your money,.
Almost all martingale strategy that i've tried before are the same result end up losing..
So for those who wants to follow the methods you should ready and you know that there is no guaranteed to win dice game.. just gamble that you can afford to lose.

[Hyperius]

Maybe I'm totally mistaken but seriously, isn't that just too much of a pattern for randomness???!

First off, it doesn't matter if you bet "over" or "under".  Your odds are the same either way. 

Thank you for your response. I liked what you said. But may I ask why the above statement is true?

Personally I think randomness wouldn't make a pattern as ordered as 3/3/3/3/3. And my opinion is that the more complex a pattern is, the lower the odds are for it to manifest in a data feed. You seem like you are very knowledgeable about probability and dice action. Have you ever seen this over/under 3/3/3/3/3 pattern play out?

Thanks again and I am awaiting your reply. Cheers! 

[ONM]

Maybe I'm totally mistaken but seriously, isn't that just too much of a pattern for randomness???!

First off, it doesn't matter if you bet "over" or "under".  Your odds are the same either way. 

Thank you for your response. I liked what you said. But may I ask why the above statement is true?

Personally I think randomness wouldn't make a pattern as ordered as 3/3/3/3/3. And my opinion is that the more complex a pattern is, the lower the odds are for it to manifest in a data feed. You seem like you are very knowledgeable about probability and dice action. Have you ever seen this over/under 3/3/3/3/3 pattern play out?

Thanks again and I am awaiting your reply. Cheers! 

Because that's how randomness works.  It's random.  Each bet is independent of each bet before or after it.  So any 50% coinflip bet has the same odds to go 'over' as 'under'.  Whatever happened before or after it is irrelevant and any patterns that arise are just coincidental.  A 3/3/3/3/3 pattern has the exact same odds of occurring as a 1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1 pattern, or a 14/1 pattern, or a 1/14 pattern, or a 2/3/2/3/2/3 pattern, or any other pattern.  Because of randomness.  I'm sure all of those patterns have occurred over a 15 game sample thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times.

[Bitcoingiver]

Will this method really work

[yogg]

Will this method really work

All martingales method work until they blow out. :p
The fallacy here is to believe that there is natural balance somewhere. That if you lose once at 50%, next time you'll win.
There is nothing like that. Only bets with odds not related to each other.

[Hyperius]

Maybe I'm totally mistaken but seriously, isn't that just too much of a pattern for randomness???!

First off, it doesn't matter if you bet "over" or "under".  Your odds are the same either way. 

Thank you for your response. I liked what you said. But may I ask why the above statement is true?

Personally I think randomness wouldn't make a pattern as ordered as 3/3/3/3/3. And my opinion is that the more complex a pattern is, the lower the odds are for it to manifest in a data feed. You seem like you are very knowledgeable about probability and dice action. Have you ever seen this over/under 3/3/3/3/3 pattern play out?

Thanks again and I am awaiting your reply. Cheers! 

Because that's how randomness works.  It's random.  Each bet is independent of each bet before or after it.  So any 50% coinflip bet has the same odds to go 'over' as 'under'.  Whatever happened before or after it is irrelevant and any patterns that arise are just coincidental.  A 3/3/3/3/3 pattern
has the exact same odds of occurring as a 1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1 pattern, or a 14/1 pattern, or a 1/14 pattern, or a 2/3/2/3/2/3 pattern, or any other pattern.  Because of randomness.  I'm sure all of those patterns have occurred over a 15 game sample thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times.

OK, but it seems like you're saying randomness can be order and order can be randomness. Although perhaps you're saying order can occur randomly. But then that would be order. No?

[marlboroza]

I've seen very weird combinations. I remember one time i rolled 3 times over 99.xx and first roll after that was 98.xx, what are odds for that?
I mean, why not? Every combination is possible, so 3-3-3-3-3 is possible as well.

Hmm, I suppose what I would say to that is how could two different strategies (1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1) versus (3/3/3/3/3) have exactly the same odds? I like to invoke physics whenever I can lol! Or God for that matter haha.

3-3-3-3
3 rolls under - 12.5% chance, and after 12.5% you switched from over to under, chance for 4 rolls in row under 50 is 6.25%. And you continue  with under(2 rolls), and because first one was over 50, second roll has 25% chance, third roll has 12.5% chance and after 12.5% chance you switched again to over and chance is again 6.5%

1-1-1-1
Chance to switch low-high is 50%, but there is always 25% chance it won't switch low-hi 

I hope this is not too much confusing, it's one big math field!  

[ONM]

Maybe I'm totally mistaken but seriously, isn't that just too much of a pattern for randomness???!

First off, it doesn't matter if you bet "over" or "under".  Your odds are the same either way. 

Thank you for your response. I liked what you said. But may I ask why the above statement is true?

Personally I think randomness wouldn't make a pattern as ordered as 3/3/3/3/3. And my opinion is that the more complex a pattern is, the lower the odds are for it to manifest in a data feed. You seem like you are very knowledgeable about probability and dice action. Have you ever seen this over/under 3/3/3/3/3 pattern play out?

Thanks again and I am awaiting your reply. Cheers! 

Because that's how randomness works.  It's random.  Each bet is independent of each bet before or after it.  So any 50% coinflip bet has the same odds to go 'over' as 'under'.  Whatever happened before or after it is irrelevant and any patterns that arise are just coincidental.  A 3/3/3/3/3 pattern
has the exact same odds of occurring as a 1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1 pattern, or a 14/1 pattern, or a 1/14 pattern, or a 2/3/2/3/2/3 pattern, or any other pattern.  Because of randomness.  I'm sure all of those patterns have occurred over a 15 game sample thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times.

OK, but it seems like you're saying randomness can be order and order can be randomness. Although perhaps you're saying order can occur randomly. But then that would be order. No?

...what?

Things are random.  You can see patterns in the outcomes because you want to, but that doesn't mean there's any sort of reason or order to the results, and there's no way to project what's going to happen in the future because all of the results are independent of each other.

Don't believe me?  Go flip a coin (or simulate flipping a coin) a million times and look through the results.  I'm sure you'll find a bunch of interesting patterns that happened, but that doesn't mean anything, it's just a curiosity. 

[yogg]

Randomness is not an issue here.

I'll make an example with only 3 rolls in a row. U stands for Under 50 and O is for Over 50.
We have 8 possible outcomes here :

1) UUU
2) UUO
3) UOU
4) UOO
5) OUU
6) OUO
7) OOU
OOO

If you play by 50% chance to win, with 3 rolls you'll go one of this way.
With 4 rolls, you can go 16 possible ways. In fact, you can go nrolls² ways.
The more rolls, the more you will be sucked in by the house edge.

A martingale will help you recoup your losses when you are lucky. But eventually after being "saved" a few times you'll burst.
This is mathematical. There are 2 more factors to it : your wallet is limited, and even with 1M BTC the dice game limits the bets amounts.

You can maybe limit your loss, but won't win that way.

[iluvbitcoins]

Wait, what

You just wrote Martingale can't blow up and you proceed to explain a martingale strategy
The only change is you don't keep betting the same under/over on loss
The house can still win, it's not very likely there will be 15 unders in a row, but it's the same chance as 15 under/under/under/over/over etc. you wrote
It changes nothing

....

The thing is strategies do not matter at all

The house has it edge, and you don't
You have a 49.5% chance to win, no matter how long you play
The longer you play to greater earnings for the house, the more you play the bigger the chance of "unlikely" outcomes to happen
But you also have a chance of 15 right ones coming out, so who am I to judge o.O
Dunno
Good luck with this anyways

[SportbetMaster]

49% win 50% lose and 1% is the house edge if you play it random,
now we will take an example using the classic martingale:

100mbtc bankroll
0.01 mbtc BB , return to BB in win , increase BB by 100% in lose, number of bet 100
1 bet= win 2 bet= win ........... 80 bet= win  wow, what a lucky men 80 win in a row, But luck turns and leaves it up to bad luck After the 94 bet, a message appears  your balance is insufficient    

Final statistics:
   Number of roll: 94
   Won: 80
   Lose: 14
   win average: 85.1%
   lose average: 14.9%
  Bankroll: - 81.12[/color]

This game is more then Provably fairy

[/b]

since my knowledge is limited in math and physics, I used science fiction to perform this calculates.
    

[Hyperius]

Wait, what

You just wrote Martingale can't blow up and you proceed to explain a martingale strategy
The only change is you don't keep betting the same under/over on loss
The house can still win, it's not very likely there will be 15 unders in a row, but it's the same chance as 15 under/under/under/over/over etc. you wrote
It changes nothing

....

The thing is strategies do not matter at all

The house has it edge, and you don't
You have a 49.5% chance to win, no matter how long you play
The longer you play to greater earnings for the house, the more you play the bigger the chance of "unlikely" outcomes to happen
But you also have a chance of 15 right ones coming out, so who am I to judge o.O
Dunno
Good luck with this anyways

Nice one, thanks chief..